The second Apple v. Samsung patent trial has wrapped up, with both sides delivering their closing arguments to a jury gathered in San Jose federal court for the last month.

Apple is seeking $2.2 billion in damages from Samsung, its biggest competitor. Samsung turned the smartphone market into a "two-horse race" by copying, according to Apple lawyers. Apple already won around $930 million from a bruising 2012 jury verdict against Samsung, combined with a 2013 re-trial on some damages issues.

Apple: "Time for you to do justice"

Apple's lead counsel, Harold McElhinny, went first, taking "all of four minutes to invoke the memory of Steve Jobs," notes an Associated Press brief on the closing. McElhinny called the iPhone "revolutionary," just as he had in the opening statement, which was laden with glowing press coverage of the first iPhone launched in 2007.

"Samsung changed phone after phone that was under development to copy feature after feature after feature of the iPhone," McElhinny said, according to a PCWorld report. "Now it’s time for you to do justice."

Other reports show how McElhinny pushed the fact that Apple had multiple software engineers testify while no Samsung executives showed up from Korea. "None of them were brave enough to come here and face cross examination," McElhinny said, per Reuters.

Google has supported Samsung through this litigation, providing witnesses and covering some costs. The case centers around the Android software loaded on to Samsung phones. But McElhinny made sure the jury was clear that this case was against Samsung, not Google.

“Google is not a defendant in this case,” McElhinny said, according to re/code. “The issue in this case is Samsung’s conduct... Google should not be an issue for you."

Apple is asserting Samsung sold 37 million phones that infringe five Apple patents, which cover features including swipe-to-unlock, an auto-correction method for spelling, background syncing, "data recognition" of phone numbers and dates, and universal search. It has accused Samsung's Galaxy III, Note II, Stratosphere, and Galaxy Nexus phones, among others, of infringing.

Samsung: "You know Apple doesn't own everything"

"There's no copying in this case," Samsung lawyer John Quinn told the jury. "They have to make you think that so you get enraged." That's what they need to do, to justify a $2.2 billion damages claim, he said.

Quinn's closing was fast-paced, to the point of leaving him breathless at points. He emphasized that the jury should take a close second look at the five patents Apple has asserted in this lawsuit and not just sign off on the decisions of the US Patent Office. "At the patent office it was just Apple," he reminded the jury.

Finally, he took a shot at Apple's damages case: asking for up to $40 per phone. "They'll be dancing in the streets of Cupertino if you give them $100 million," said Quinn, according to a live blog from the San Jose Mercury-News.

"This suit was a longshot," Quinn added. "It's in their backyard. They certainly weren't going to take on the local company, Google in Mountain View, and they didn't."

Apple's real goal was to shut down the competition, he said. Quinn pointed to a 2010 e-mail from Steve Jobs, first made public during this trial's opening statements, in which Jobs laid out a long list of items on the company's agenda for 2011. "Holy war with Google" was high up on the list.

Samsung has two patents of its own that it says are infringed by Apple. Its damage demand for those patents is $6 million. Apple lawyer Bill Lee did a short rebuttal of that case, saying that the whole point of Samsung's counterclaim was "to convince folks like you that patents aren't worth much."

See, you're looking at things in purely legal sense. I'm looking at things in the moral sense. Just because Apple's execs haven't actually been convicted of breaking any laws, that doesn't make them any less innocent of the bad and immoral things they've done to get to where they are today.

Look, I know you badly want to believe Apple is a straight-up and honest company, but wishing for something doesn't make it so.

Again, examples? Tim Cook is "not literally, but morally" a gangster? Really? This is based on what, exactly? Give some specifics.

The conviction for price fixing and collusion comes to mind.

And from what I understand Steve Jobs was the ringleader in the recently settled agreement among tech companies to not poach each other employees to keep wages down, going so far as to threaten one company (can't remember which one) with patent lawsuits if they didn't agree to it. "Pretty nice business you got there, shame if something were to happen to it." Gangsters is exactly right.

Very cute. I gave you a clear example of your precious Saint Steve using blatant gangster-style tactics by threatening to sue a company for billions if it didn't agree to an illegal arrangement. And here you are, attempting to distract the attention away from his obvious criminal behaviour by pretending something I didn't actually say or could in any way be mistaken for saying.

Wait, did I say cute? I meant disgusting. MikahR is right, you should be a politician. You'd fit right in.

You did in fact mention price fixing. I was assuming you were talking about the e-books case. Was that not the case?

Because if that's what you were talking about, price fixing actually takes multiple partners to work.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Samsung's actions may not have caused any patent reform but because of this suit, it has made the USPTO pay more attention to both Samsung and Apple's patents. This has resulted in the invalidation of some of Apple's patents that were brought forth in the original suit, such as the "rubber band" feature (See a previous Ars article on the subject here: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/ap ... le-patent/)

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

Yeah, Apple really deserves to strongarm companies using the background data, spelling check, and universal search patents. Because surely those were never used before the iPhone.

If you let go of your ridiculous over-simplification of the patents, I'm very interested to see examples of where things such as the universal search patent existed prior to the iPhone? Examples please. And make sure your example actually does what the patent is for. You might need to actually read the patent first.

You are the one calling people gangsters, no one else here is being that childish.

I was replying to this message on Page 2 (emphasis added):

Quote:

If you want to get literal, Apple is run by noteworthy gangsters too. Except they're an American company so what they do is seen in a different light, and a lot of people see their tactics as being just business as usual.

So Samsung and any other manufacturers will say "Hey, don't look at us, we're just using Google's Android like everyone else, we can't control what's in it.", while if Google is ever sued, they will just say "Hey, don't look at us, we just make a free OS that we don't profit on and that anyone is free to modify, talk to the manufacturers if you have a problem."

If only that were true.Samsung made their products look/act as close as they could to Apples. This even applied to the power supplies, the packaging, icons, etc etc etc.Google had no control over that.

What Samsung has done would be like me posting under the name Mitlov (notice the extra space at the end). Now 99.999% of people would NOT see the difference, but hey what are you gonna do, start claiming you have copyright on the Alphabet....

And it is only Samsung who have copies this closely, other manufacturers have design teams who have been able to make functional, aesthetic products which DONT look/behave like Apples. They were warned by Google, and chose to ignore the warning.

Maybe you can show us something that Samsung has brought to the market in the mobile space that was new, innovative, successful, and not inspired by the iPhone....Bringing back the stylus? I don't know, Mickey, you seem to be the expert on all things Samsung. Maybe you can help us out here.

* Samsung basically invented the "phablet" market segment with the Galaxy Note line...a segment that most other Android OEMs have followed Samsung into for their flagship devices.

* Samsung was the first (and only?) OEM to introduce digitizer stylus functionality to Android with the S-pen.

* Samsung was the first OEM to build split-screen multitasking into Android, starting I believe with the Galaxy S3.

* Samsung was the first OEM to build windowed multitasking into Android, starting I believe with the Galaxy Note 2.

* Samsung was the first OEM to build quick-toggle settings into the notification shade.

* Samsung is the only smartphone maker I know of whose flagship features both microSD expansion and a swappable battery.

Phones like the Galaxy Note III aren't copies of the iPhone. They're the diametric opposite of the iPhone. If you think that consumers believe that the Galaxy Note III and devices like it are iPhone clones, or think they're buying an iPhone when they buy a Note III...I don't know what to say.

This is a really silly list. Making a device bigger is not 'innovation' or 'creative'. Multitasking hasn't been built into phones by any others because it's pointless - and it's most definitely not a new idea. Quick toggle has existed on jailbroken iPhones for years. MicroSD and swappable batteries are not innovative. And a stylus? Come on.

And your final point that they aren't copied just proves your failure to understand what this case is about. It's about software infringement. The phones don't have to look anything like each other or be anything remotely resembling a clone.

The reason they will not take on Google, is they cannot rely on patriotism to win the case when facing another American company.

Where it is much easier to stereotype a Korean company as nothing but Asian copiers of American technology.

So very true lolLike an American jury is ever going to rule in favour of a foreign company over one of the their own.

You'd be surprised.

OTOH, you are right in the sense that Apple certainly had home court advantage in this case. But it's not because it took place in the United States. It's because it took place in Silicon Valley.

But Apple had what most observers felt was a strong case going in. I don't think that the question was ever, "Will Apple win?" I think it's always been about the amount of damages awarded. Well, that, and the amount that Judge Koh would reduce them by, if any (though Samsung's lawyers/witness' antics the other day probably didn't help; she sounded pretty pissed off).

Personally, and I'm just basing this on following the proceedings by reading descriptions of testimony and the like, and based on how the first trial went, I would be shocked if the jury awarded less than a billion. I'd also be shocked if they awarded in the $2B area.

But coming from a family of lawyers, and having worked in the legal field a bit myself (though not as a lawyer) if there's one thing I've learned it's that you never know for sure what a jury is going to do.

Other reports show how McElhinny pushed the fact that Apple had multiple software engineers testify while no Samsung executives showed up from Korea. "None of them were brave enough to come here and face cross examination," McElhinny said, per Reuters.

Could it be because the disputed software features were written by Google engineers, not Samsung engineers?

Could it be Google had nothing to offer so stayed home to sulk?

They certainly have bus loads of coders passing by the courthouse every day and some people will say anything for a vanilla latte with wipped cream.

Other reports show how McElhinny pushed the fact that Apple had multiple software engineers testify while no Samsung executives showed up from Korea. "None of them were brave enough to come here and face cross examination," McElhinny said, per Reuters.

Could it be because the disputed software features were written by Google engineers, not Samsung engineers?

Could it be Google had nothing to offer so stayed home to sulk?

They certainly have bus loads of coders passing by the courthouse every day and some people will say anything for a vanilla latte with wipped cream.

five Apple patents, which cover features including swipe-to-unlock, an auto-correction method for spelling, background syncing, "data recognition" of phone numbers and dates, and universal search

As a developer and entrepreneur, I've always found patents like Apple's and Samsung's to be terrifying. It's absurd that the USPTO would accept such simple and obvious one-sentence ideas as patentable... and even more absurd that these things are actually upheld by courts at times.

You know the USPTO is totally broken when people must be in fear of innovating... because simple and obvious ideas (like having a scanner send an image to you via email) could put you in catastrophic legal trouble.

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent.

Because the USPTO is completely broken and corrupt - what do you suggest? Companies could give up entirely... but that's not going to happen. Even with millions or billions on hand to invoke change ~ what is it that a "good" company is supposed to do about the countless b.s. patents and their never-ending creation?

Google is not a defendant in this case,” McElhinny said, according to re/code. “The issue in this case is Samsung’s conduct... Google should not be an issue for you."

Apple is asserting Samsung sold 37 million phones that infringe five Apple patents, which cover features including swipe-to-unlock, an auto-correction method for spelling, background syncing, "data recognition" of phone numbers and dates, and universal search. It has accused Samsung's Galaxy III, Note II, Stratosphere, and Galaxy Nexus phones, among others, of infringing.

It's sad that the only coverage of this trial on Ars was of the opening and closing statements, where we know that hyperbole will prevail, instead of during the testimony, where the sides try to present facts that support their case (and hyperbole).

If that's all you're going to report on, why bother?

The whole thing is over patents no one should have been granted. None of it's better than hyperbole.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

The problem with your assertion is that the patent process works on the "fling crap at the wall" basis. A well run patent office that follows the actual laws as written would be a great boon to the country as it was in the past. However, since the patent office doesn't seem to employ things such as engineers or other people who are "talented in the art" that they are reviewing this doesn't work. I'd wager good money that most patents are granted by people who have probably never studies the field in question outside of the few hours they get to "research" the patent.

You claim the patent process needs to change but that very well may not be true. The patent process can change to hell and back again and still cause issues like this because a key ingredient will always be missing; the money to hire field experts. I wouldn't trust a brain surgeon to grant a software patent any more than I would a liberal arts major ... well, a little more ... because the brain surgeon is gifted and trained in the arts of surgery not software.

Finally, you are making the same assumption that is the reason we're in this mess to begin with. You are assuming, by your statement, that the patent office actually has their act together and patents are granted after thorough research and due dilligence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Patent review times are abysmal due to the overwhelming backlog of filed patents. This is compounded by the fact that a company with money can keep refiling the same patent in the hopes that some day it'll make it through. To illustrate this point all you have to do is take a look at the EFFs list of worst patents out there. Do you expect me to believe I should give any type of credence to Amazon's "One Click" patent or the "Shopping Cart" patent (that was thankfully ruled void) (thank you NewEgg).

Instead of talking about changing the laws how about you do a little reasearch and realize the laws are not being followed and, if they are, not being followed as intended. Patents are supposed to encourage innovation not strangle it and bury it in an open pasture on a dark summer's night.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

Yeah, Apple really deserves to strongarm companies using the background data, spelling check, and universal search patents. Because surely those were never used before the iPhone.

If you let go of your ridiculous over-simplification of the patents, I'm very interested to see examples of where things such as the universal search patent existed prior to the iPhone? Examples please. And make sure your example actually does what the patent is for. You might need to actually read the patent first.

Uhm, just for clairification, patents should not be granted simply because something did not exist at the time. It must be novel AND non-obvious to somebody gifted in the art. I stress the "and" and would like to point out, again, that simply because something didn't exist doesn't mean it is non-obvious. I could argue that universal search is actually non obvious but a jury of non software engineers (or even "hello world" hobby coders) decided that this software engineer is wrong about that.

"which cover features including swipe-to-unlock, an auto-correction method for spelling, background syncing, "data recognition" of phone numbers and dates, and universal search"

Every modern smartphone has these features baked into the OS, so why is Apple suing Samsung and not Google, or Blackberry or Microsoft or all 3? Is it because they would lose, and Samsung is a convenient target because they are their direct competitor?

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

Yeah, Apple really deserves to strongarm companies using the background data, spelling check, and universal search patents. Because surely those were never used before the iPhone.

If you let go of your ridiculous over-simplification of the patents, I'm very interested to see examples of where things such as the universal search patent existed prior to the iPhone? Examples please. And make sure your example actually does what the patent is for. You might need to actually read the patent first.

apple took two different forms of search and put them to be searched under one gui. That's not novel or non-obvious in any way to implement, seeing how there are plenty of search engines that search more than one database already and present the results.

The more I see Apple complain about Samsung, I just think to myself that Samsung's Android devices are still outselling Apple's devices.

*headdesk*

Yes. Samsung sells more phones. For example, they sell this thing called the Galaxy Y. It's inexpensive, it has very limited specs. I'm sure for a number of people that it's great. Yes, Samsung is winning in the "race to the bottom" department.

Samsung THEMSELVES said as much this week.

Apple is not in the mass market, low margin game. They aren't playing there and have no intention to do so. That's simply not part of the market that they address. And please note:

In the last quarter, Samsung sold twice as many phones as Apple, and yet Apple earned twice the profits that Samsung did. Now, maybe this is just me, but profits seem to be far, far more important than units shipped.

The more I see Apple complain about Samsung, I just think to myself that Samsung's Android devices are still outselling Apple's devices.

*headdesk*

Yes. Samsung sells more phones. For example, they sell this thing called the Galaxy Y. It's inexpensive, it has very limited specs. I'm sure for a number of people that it's great. Yes, Samsung is winning in the "race to the bottom" department.

Samsung THEMSELVES said as much this week.

Apple is not in the mass market, low margin game. They aren't playing there and have no intention to do so. That's simply not part of the market that they address. And please note:

In the last quarter, Samsung sold twice as many phones as Apple, and yet Apple earned twice the profits that Samsung did. Now, maybe this is just me, but profits seem to be far, far more important than units shipped.

Yeah, and I can't afford a Moto X. How nice of Moto to not worry about 37% profit margins and sell a well made phone, the moto g for people like me!

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

You are the one calling people gangsters, no one else here is being that childish.

I was replying to this message on Page 2 (emphasis added):

Quote:

If you want to get literal, Apple is run by noteworthy gangsters too. Except they're an American company so what they do is seen in a different light, and a lot of people see their tactics as being just business as usual.

So, I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about.

Okay point taken, so your flamebait got one person biting. But he was still reusing your terminology that you started using for people in a position of leadership who has been convicted of a crime.

You are the one calling people gangsters, no one else here is being that childish.

I was replying to this message on Page 2 (emphasis added):

Quote:

If you want to get literal, Apple is run by noteworthy gangsters too. Except they're an American company so what they do is seen in a different light, and a lot of people see their tactics as being just business as usual.

So, I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about.

Okay point taken, so your flamebait got one person biting. But he was still reusing your terminology that you started using for people in a position of leadership who has been convicted of a crime.

Jesus effin' Christ! Did you even read the thread?!

It was neither he nor I who introduced the term. It was a THIRD PARTY on Page 1. Then the discussion, with repeated use of the term carried on between a few people -- NONE of whom were me!

The first time I posted concerning the use of the term "Gangster" was in response to that post above.

I have made many mistakes and dumb posts. I will continue to do so, I am sure. But for fuck's sake, if you're going to accuse me of something, at least make sure it's something that I ACTUALLY DID!

I hope this is the last Apple V. Samsung case. Look forward to the results and tbh think that's the only exciting part about these cases any more, the rest is just speculation and causes rage fits on both sides of the fandom kingdoms.

Doubtful, since the latest Samsung phones like the Galaxy Vs are not included in this suit and the Apple patents are still valid and have not been overturned by USPTO. This litigation will most likely continue until the patents are either overturned or they expire years from now.

Of interest is the Rockstar litigation against Android (Google and all the handset makers like Samsung) directly. Rockstar has a lot to prove after spending 4.5 Billion of Apple, Microsoft, et. al.'s money. Gotta get ROI.

Regarding "fandom kingdoms" I really wonder if that is the way most people look at these things? Or is the person just interested in a device that is a good tool that can help them do the things they want to do?

Of course once a person has invested in the ecosystem surrounding these devices inertia makes it hard to walk away from that investment into other systems that are funtionally similar, but are incompatible with their investment in the current ecosystem in which they operate.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

The issue is prior art. "Email" and "Notes" and whatnot existed BEFORE the iPhone was invented. Icons that look like a letter opened were created before iPhone. Yet somehow Apple is able to claim copyright and patent infringement on items that existed prior to iOS and iPhones.

BTW, Samsung uses Google Android for the operating system, yes? These items that Apple is suing over do exist on Google Android, correct? So is the target Samsung or Google?

The issue is prior art. "Email" and "Notes" and whatnot existed BEFORE the iPhone was invented. Icons that look like a letter opened were created before iPhone. Yet somehow Apple is able to claim copyright and patent infringement on items that existed prior to iOS and iPhones.

BTW, Samsung uses Google Android for the operating system, yes? These items that Apple is suing over do exist on Google Android, correct? So is the target Samsung or Google?

If only that were true.Samsung made their products look/act as close as they could to Apples. This even applied to the power supplies, the packaging, icons, etc etc etc.Google had no control over that.

What Samsung has done would be like me posting under the name Mitlov (notice the extra space at the end). Now 99.999% of people would NOT see the difference, but hey what are you gonna do, start claiming you have copyright on the Alphabet....

And it is only Samsung who have copies this closely, other manufacturers have design teams who have been able to make functional, aesthetic products which DONT look/behave like Apples. They were warned by Google, and chose to ignore the warning.

Maybe you can show us something that Samsung has brought to the market in the mobile space that was new, innovative, successful, and not inspired by the iPhone....Bringing back the stylus? I don't know, Mickey, you seem to be the expert on all things Samsung. Maybe you can help us out here.

* Samsung basically invented the "phablet" market segment with the Galaxy Note line...a segment that most other Android OEMs have followed Samsung into for their flagship devices.

* Samsung was the first (and only?) OEM to introduce digitizer stylus functionality to Android with the S-pen.

* Samsung was the first OEM to build split-screen multitasking into Android, starting I believe with the Galaxy S3.

* Samsung was the first OEM to build windowed multitasking into Android, starting I believe with the Galaxy Note 2.

* Samsung was the first OEM to build quick-toggle settings into the notification shade.

* Samsung is the only smartphone maker I know of whose flagship features both microSD expansion and a swappable battery.

Phones like the Galaxy Note III aren't copies of the iPhone. They're the diametric opposite of the iPhone. If you think that consumers believe that the Galaxy Note III and devices like it are iPhone clones, or think they're buying an iPhone when they buy a Note III...I don't know what to say.

This is a really silly list. Making a device bigger is not 'innovation' or 'creative'. Multitasking hasn't been built into phones by any others because it's pointless - and it's most definitely not a new idea. Quick toggle has existed on jailbroken iPhones for years. MicroSD and swappable batteries are not innovative. And a stylus? Come on.

And your final point that they aren't copied just proves your failure to understand what this case is about. It's about software infringement. The phones don't have to look anything like each other or be anything remotely resembling a clone.

So you're saying that no other phone should be able to use auto-correct because apple was the first to put it on a phone? Your argument is terrible, obvious Apple fanboy. Apple hasn't released anything new in a while now, and they are suing instead of innovating because they lost their magic. And background syncing? Come on.

Which is precisely the purpose of patents: to give the holder exclusivity for a limited period of time. Whether the patents should have been granted is another matter. Whether patents should give exclusivity for more than something like 2 years is also another matter. But until the law changes, it is the law. And a lawyer making such a statement, as above, is an asshat.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

Why did you feel the need to point out "Korean"? Contrary to Apple's improper closing argument in Apple v. Samsung I about Asian television companies versus American television companies, this is a battle between two private companies, not a battle between nations. Nationalism and xenophobia should have no place in this discussion.

The heart of the matter is, Apple has been granted patents that they don't deserve and shouldn't have been granted, because they are basic functions of computing and data communication across devices and servers. Some of the patents they claim Samsung infringed upon are so broad that any company who tries to create their own mobile computing device, even if it has nothing to do with the iPhone, will violate them.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. Should a company who disagrees with the patent office be able to go ahead an use an idea that someone has successfully patented without impunity? What value would a patent have if anyone could use them if they happen to disagree with their value?

I believe some should go after changing the patent process if they disagree with it rather than go after those that have successfully obtained a patent. We make laws and rules and then we are supposed to follow them. All of them. Not just the ones we agree with. Change the law if necessary.

Revolutions have to start somewhere. The U.S. Patent system is in need of a major rehaul and this whole Apple vs. Samsung fight is going to be a basis for that argument.

Right now it's a poor poster child for revolution. I mean, if you want to get behind a group of Korean gangsters whose CEO is CEO again after serving time for crimes committed as CEO that's cool and all, but I think that maybe Apple might be on to something with this one.

Unless the CEO's criminal record pertains to this trial, there's no point in bringing it up.

I still have to say that software patents are ridiculous. One of the conditions for a patent is that the solution must not be obvious to somebody skilled in the trade. But for 99% of software patents that I've seen, my answer has always been "duh." If you asked me "how would you do x?" I would give you the patent's solution without even spending a minute to think about it. Your idea isn't novel if everybody under the sun would come up with it on their own. Patents are supposed to be about breakthroughs, not answering simple math questions.

Uck Fapple. I'm no big Samsung/Google fan boi. In fact, Google has gotten to the point that they sort of creep me out, (Seriously,. My daughter sent me a Samsung Galaxy S4. By the time I was done setting it up and realized just how much of my life that phone would give Google access to, I reset it and sold it on that big auction site.) No matter. Apple is become the thing that the young Steve Jobs hated and warned against. No thanks. And the patent system that gives rise to this crapola? No thanks to that either.